The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER FIVE: INCIVILITIES AND COMMUNITY COHESION

5.1 We now turn to a second possible consequence of environmental incivilities, that their perceived presence might be correlated with certain aspects of community cohesion. We consider three such aspects in particular: social trust, fatalism about the local neighbourhood, and fear of crime. Between them they give an indication of the degree of 'social capital' that might exist in a community. Social capital has been defined as 'connections among individuals - social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them' (Putnam, 2000: 19). It is argued that a society that is rich in social networks and the bonds of trust that these engender is more efficient, participative and happy. In contrast where low social trust, as evinced in fear of crime, is prevalent, poor health appears to be so too (Chandola, 2001; Green et al, 2002; Lindstrom et al, 2003).

5.2 Previous research gives some reason to anticipate that a high incidence of environmental incivilities increases people's fear of crime (Lagrange et al, 1992; Herbert, 1993; Austin et al, 2002; Robinson et al, 2003). Meanwhile, residents who perceive higher levels of incivilities have been found to be less attached to their neighbourhood, which in turn is associated with high population turnover (Brown et al, 2003), lowered social trust and more negative perceptions of the local neighbourhood. The development of local social networks may even suffer from an adverse impact of incivilities on people's willingness to walk (Skjaeveland and Garling, 1997).

Incivilities and social trust

5.3 Table 5.1 shows the relationship between our three additive incivility scales, divided as in the last chapter into quartiles, and four indicators of social trust. The first of these indicators is whether people feel that in their area 'people do things together to try and help each other' or whether instead 'people mostly go their own way'. The second indicator is one of the most commonly used measures of social trust; it asks respondents whether they feel 'most people can be trusted' or whether 'you can't be too careful in dealing with people'. In both cases we show in the table the proportion giving the first response. Meanwhile our third and fourth indicators tap some of the possible practical benefits of social trust and reciprocity where it exists. We asked respondents whether they would feel comfortable asking a neighbour if they could borrow £5 to pay a milk bill, and whether they would feel comfortable asking a neighbour to collect a prescription from a chemist on their behalf.

Table 5.1 Incivilities and social trust

5.4 Table 5.1 suggests that both street level incivilities and absence of goods have an adverse impact on social trust but that the same cannot be said so clearly of infrastructural incivilities. This can be seen if we look at how the proportion who say that people can be trusted varies according to the degree to which they report various incivilities to be a problem. Amongst those with a low street level incivilities score, no less than 59% say that generally people can be trusted; this figure falls to 44% amongst those with a high street level incivilities score. Meanwhile 66% of those with a low absence of goods score feel that people can be trusted, considerably higher than the 43% of those with a high score who feel that way. In contrast the equivalent gap between those with a low infrastructural incivilities score and a high one is just seven points. A similar pattern exists in respect of perceptions of the degree to which people help each other out and how comfortable people feel they would be asking a neighbour collect a prescription. Only in the case of willingness to ask someone to borrow money is the difference between those with a low street level or absence of goods score and those with a high one both relatively small and no greater than in respect of infrastructural incivilities.

Incivilities and fatalism about local neighbourhood

5.5 If people feel that the various environmental incivilities in their area are a problem, they might have one of two reactions. On the one hand they may be sufficiently angry to want to do something about it. On the other hand they may feel a sense of resignation, that the problems in their local area are overwhelming and that they cannot do much about them. This latter feeling might be particularly likely if people do not trust their neighbours and as a result feel disinclined to get involved in attempts to engage in collective action designed to try and reduce environmental nuisance.

5.6 We asked our respondents two questions about the degree to which felt able to do something about the problems in their area. First we asked them whether they agreed or disagreed that 'I often feel helpless about what it's like to live around here'. Thereafter they were also asked whether they agreed or disagreed that 'It is just too difficult for someone like me to do much about improving my local area'. As Table 5.2 shows, people were far more likely to agree with these propositions if they reported a high level of street level incivilities or an absence of goods in their area. Those with a high infrastructural incivilities score are also somewhat more likely to agree, though in both cases the gap between those with a low score and those with a high score is rather smaller on this scale.

5.7 It appears then those who feel that various aspects of the environment pose a problem in their area feel rather powerless to do anything about it. We should not however assume that this means that they do not in practice attempt to do anything about it. We also show in Table 5.2 the proportion of people who say they have never done one of fourteen forms of political participation, such as signing a petition, attending a public meeting, or going on a protest or demonstration, in order to register how they feel about some issue. ⁸ These data indicate that if anything, those with high incivility scores are slightly less likely to say they have never done one of these things. While we do not know whether any of the actions that people reported having taken were designed to secure improvements in their local environment, it would appear to be unwise to assume that the sense of fatalism registered by those living in areas with high levels of incivility necessarily means that they do not attempt to do something about it.

Table 5.2 Incivilities and fatalism

Incivilities and fear of crime

5.8 As we indicated at the beginning of this chapter, a number of previous studies have reported a relationship between incivilities and fear of crime. This is perhaps not surprising as at least some incivilities, such as vandalism and graffiti, are themselves criminal acts. However, the 2004 Scottish Social Attitudes Survey included a number of measures of fear of crime that refer to more serious criminal acts than minor vandalism or graffiti. Respondents were asked how much they worried about having their home broken into or being attacked or assaulted in the street. They were also asked more generally how safe they felt walking around in their neighbourhood during the day and after dark.

Table 5.3 Incivilities and fear of crime

5.9 The results in Table 5.3 indicate that those who report high level of incivilities, and especially street level incivilities and absence of goods, are more likely to worry about their home being broken into or about being attacked in the street, while at the same time they are less likely to say that they feel very safe walking around in their local neighbourhood. For example those who report a high incidence of street level incivilities are ten points more likely than those who report a low incidence to say that they worry 'a great deal' or 'quite a lot' about being attacked or assaulted in the street. The equivalent gap on the absence of goods scale is no less than 17 points while there is no discernible gap at all on the infrastructural incivilities scale. It appears that our findings confirm previous research that reported exposure to incivilities is associated with fear of crime.

Multivariate analysis

5.10 None of the above analyses, however, take any account of the social character of our respondents. Yet previous research has indicated that, for example, middle class people are more likely to feel a sense of social trust than working class people (Johnston and Jowell, 2001), that older people are more likely to have a fear of crime, while younger and less well educated people are less likely to take any form of political action (Curtice and Seyd, 2003). Perhaps once we take these relationships into account we will find that the association between environmental incivilities and our indicators of community cohesion begins to disappear.

5.11 To assess this possibility we have undertaken a set of logistic regression analyses in which we control for the possible effects of gender, social class, age group and educational level, and then include, in the same model, our measures of our three sets of incivilities, again divided into quartiles. By including all three sets of incivilities in the same model we are able to check that any association that we uncover is independent of the relationship between the dependent variable and either or both of the other two incivilities. In the case of our social trust indicators we have modelled them as follows:

• the probability that someone says that people do not help each other in their area versus saying they do so to at least some degree,
• the probability that someone says you cannot be too careful with people versus that people can be trusted,
• whether the respondent does not feel comfortable asking to borrow £5 as opposed to feeling comfortable,
• and whether the respondent does not feel very comfortable asking a neighbour to collect a prescription as opposed to feeling very comfortable.

5.12 Thus in each case we model the probability of giving a less trustful response. We report the results in Table 5.4 by showing the estimated impact of having a particular incivilities score as opposed to having a low score on the odds of giving the less trusting response. Thus the higher the odds ratio the less trusting someone is.

Table 5.4 Incivilities and social trust after controlling for individual social characteristics

Note to table

N= 1374, 1490, 1496 and 1495 respectively. Cell entries are estimated odds ratios for the effect of being in that category as opposed to being in the base category, that is having a low score in each case, derived from a logistic regression.

Cell entries marked *are significantly different from 1 at the 5% level.

5.13 The table reveals that on three of our four measures those with a high or 'higher medium' incidence of absence of goods are still significantly more likely than those with a low score to give a less trusting response. Indeed in all three cases those with a high score are 85% more likely to give such a response. The one exception is in respect of asking a neighbour to borrow £5. Equally on three of our four measures those who have a high score on our street incivilities scale are significantly more likely to give the less trusting response, the one exception being our general measure of social trust. In contrast there is no significant relationship between any of our measures of social trust and a respondent's position on the infrastructural incivilities scale.

Table 5.5 Incivilities and fatalism after controlling for individual social characteristics

Note to table

N=1325 and 1322 respectively. Cell entries are estimated odds ratios for the effect of being in that category as opposed to being in the base category, that is having a low score in each case, derived from a logistic regression.

Cell entries marked * are significantly different from 1 at the 5% level.

5.14 Much the same result is obtained if we look at people's attitudes towards changing their area. In Table 5.5 we show the odds of someone not feeling resigned about their neighbourhood versus their being so, again in comparison with those who have a low incivilities score. Those with a high level of street level incivilities are significantly less likely to say that they do not feel helpless about living around here or that they do not feel it is difficult to improve their local area. Meanwhile those with a high absence of goods score are less likely to say they do not think it is difficult to improve their area, though there is no clear relationship between absence of goods and feeling helpless about living around here. Once again, however, there is no significant relationship at all with infrastructural incivilities.

5.15 Further analysis of the degree to which people have taken some form of political participation does not, however, show any relationship between incivilities and having got involved politically. The hint in Table 5.2 that perhaps those who report high levels of incivility might actually be more likely to take some form of political action is not confirmed; there is simply no significant relationship at all. But even so, we cannot conclude that the apparent sense of fatalism exhibited by those who report high levels of incivility necessarily inhibits them from taking some form of political action.

5.16 Finally in Table 5.6 we can see that those with high levels of street level incivilities are significantly more likely to say that they worry about being a victim of crime and that they do not feel safe walking in their neighbourhood either during the day or after dark. There is also a relationship between absence of goods and all of our measures apart from worry about being a victim of burglary. Once again, however, infrastructural incivilities are not significantly associated with any of our measures.

Table 5.6 Incivilities and fear of crime after controlling for individual social characteristics

Note to table

N=1350, 1329, 1393 and 1388 respectively. Cell entries are estimated odds ratios for the effect of being in that category as opposed to being in the base category, that is having a low score in each case, derived from a logistic regression.

Cell entries marked * are significantly different from 1 at the 5% level.

Conclusion

5.17 It appears that, in general, those who report a high level of exposure to both street level incivilities and absence of goods are less likely to trust others, feel rather overwhelmed by the problems of the area in which they live, and are more likely to worry about being a victim of crime. It would appear that where these kinds of environmental problem exist, local communities are less likely to be cohesive.

5.18 We do though need to enter a word of caution. We noted in the previous chapter that one reason why people who report high levels of incivility also report higher levels of anxiety, depression or poor general health may be because they simply have a more pessimistic outlook on life. Much the same can be said of the results reported in this chapter. Perhaps such underlying pessimism also makes people less trusting of others, less likely to feel they can do anything to change their local area, and more wary about crime.

5.19 However, if this were the sole explanation for our results we should find that those who report a high level of infrastructural incivilities should also be less trustful, more fatalistic and more in fear of crime. There is, after all, no reason why any generalised sense of pessimism should not influence the reports that respondents give about these incivilities too. Yet we have not uncovered a single instance in this chapter where those with a high score on our infrastructural incivilities scale are significantly different from those with a low score. While we would not suggest that the reduction of environmental incivilities is the only or even necessarily the most effective way of enhancing community cohesion, it does seem likely that if people feel better about those aspects of their environment tapped by our street level incivilities and absence of goods scales they are also more likely to feel better about each other too.

« Previous | Contents | Next »